soundoff(32 Responses)

Howard

As a person over 70, I realize that all Americans must take a hit. I agree that there should not be a limit on the income level for taxing for Social Security/Medicare. Also, gradually raise the age legibility for full Medicare benefits. It was done with Social Security. We are all living longer these days than when Medicare was started.

December 18, 2012 at 8:50 pm |

Chris O. in Bozeman

After seeing/listening/reading many of Mary Matalin's comments over the last few months I will use her own characterization of Obama's proposal to give her my view of her opinions: I think her views on many things, especially her championing corporations and the wealthy vs. people, health care and basic humanity as despicable and I am not even a registered Democrat. I have rarely seen her interviewed when she is not a sour, pinched and a generally negative woman and would encourage news sources to find some other person to give the conservative view as I and numerous people I know find her so offensive.

December 17, 2012 at 11:21 pm |

ben

To the Republicans I have to say this, the top 2% is not enough people to elect a president. Yes they may donate the most money to your coffers, BUT...

December 12, 2012 at 9:45 am |

Steve

it humors me when people think Republicans only support 2% of the population. Im not even remotely near the top 2% but I do believe in smaller government. I believe that there is an overwhelming sense of entitlement and desire for the government to take care of things that should be left to individuals. I believe that one's salary should be they're own and should not feel guilty nor a forced sense of responsibility to take care of anyone else.

The humorous part is that Dems really seem to want government out of their lives for all things social – yet still want the government to meddle in finances and provide for those that dont provide for themselves. Sort of a we want our allowance but dont want to answer to anyone

December 18, 2012 at 9:30 am |

Gene

Republicans don't believe in smaller government. There's no time when republicans have controlled the government that government ever got smaller. All they do is shift spending from one thing to another. Both the democrats and the republicans like government big and powerful. They just want to use big, powerful government differently.

December 19, 2012 at 12:32 am |

Todd in DC

Remember when Obama offered a deal that many on the left considered to be a cave-in to the Repubs? This was back in 2011, and even SS cuts were floated as an offer.

The repubs declined it because they thought if they just waited until 2012, the US would SURELY vote in a republican as president.

Tough break for the repubs.

December 4, 2012 at 11:59 am |

Steve L

Tough break for all of us.

December 5, 2012 at 10:59 am |

Rhett

It seems that Mary and other GOP spokespeople , during the campaign, said...The American public has a very clear choice in this presidential election. Higher taxes, big government,high unemployment and continuing on the path we are on with President Obama, versus, small government , low taxes and letting the wealthy grow the economy with Romney..well we voted for Obama NOW DO IT!!!

December 4, 2012 at 11:46 am |

Allen

Except nearly half the people said "don't do it" as well. This isn't mob rule. President Obama did not win a mandate from the American people to do what he wants. The fact that several allegations with lots of credibility suggest voter fraud on the part of the Democratic party in Ohio and Pennsylvania support that even further. He was certainly going to wint those states, but to sit her and say Romney didn't get single vote in what, 50 some districts is stretching. Not a single vote? Lets not forget the districts in Pennsylvania where Republican voters were actually turned away and barred from voting.

December 5, 2012 at 12:14 am |

Nella

oh please Allen. Get over it already. The republicans didn't have any decent candidates to offer. Michelle Bachman? Rick Santorum???!? Romney?!? Offer someone that isn't a complete disgrace to politics and maybe they will get elected. Apparently your party didn't learn their lesson with McCain/Palin... *shudder*

December 7, 2012 at 11:46 am |

James

Allen is discussing voter fraud in a presidential election... this is something so fundamentally important to a democracy that it's something you can't ever overlook(but we are because the media's favorite son won).

December 11, 2012 at 11:48 am |

Ron

Hello, James, Allen and All – voter fraud in PA and OH – seriously? Let's talk about FL in 2000, and OH in 2004 – two presidential elections stolen from the Dems.

A republican complaining about voter manipulation? What a joke that is. When the demos win the presidency with more electoral
votes and popular votes, win more senate seats, and win more more rep. seats. Most thinking people would consider that a mandate.

December 12, 2012 at 10:52 pm |

Steve

Interesting philosophy and humorous flip. Obama and co, want to raise the taxes on the top 2%. Shockingly most Americans support it – OF COURSE THEY DO, IT DOESN'T IMPACT THEM. Its a very NIMBY type mindset. Ill agree with the principles as long as it doesn't impact me.

But is kind of funny that repbs are somehow now speaking up for the rights of a minority while dems are proclaiming about majority rule.

December 18, 2012 at 9:44 am |

Lance D.

The "Massachusetts Promise" foiled by intuitive and wise GOP

December 4, 2012 at 12:03 am |

Bill

I think the fact that Mary Matalin and other right wing zealots call the President's opening offer "despicable" demonstrates how effective it is! The bold, audacious offer has caught the GOP off guard, spluttering and in a panic. Your move, Mary.

December 3, 2012 at 9:54 am |

hannah

What is despicable is George Bush starting two wars and not funding them, leaving us with the 3 trillion bill and now we have the deficit and they want to balance the budget on the backs o the middle class, seniors and the poor, cutting social security and Medicare while the rich continue to party. That's despicable.

November 30, 2012 at 6:37 pm |

Ben

Obama has added over $5 trillion to the national debt since taking office. Also, Top 10% pay over 70% of total income taxes (even though they earn 43% of total income), Top 25% pays nearly 90% (earns 66% of income). The lower to middle class have gotten, and will continue to get, a free ride on the backs of upper income earners. Perhaps you agree with this system, but don't make the spurious argument that anything is being paid "on the backs of the poor"...or that Obama has done anything but add to the debt more than any other president in US history (oh yeah, and we are still in Afghanistan)...

December 4, 2012 at 11:43 am |

Kathy F.

Ha! We are still in Afghanistan. Yes. Did Obama deploy our troops there? How about we laud the efforts the man has made to actually get the country in shape? We are basically out of Iraq. Bin Laden is dead. Unemployment IS decreasing. Millions of jobs were saved. I think everyone is quick to look at the things that were not completed without acknowledging what was done, and the conditions under which he did them. Nothing comes easy, and I really do not know how folks like yourself expected this one person to clean up the mess that President Bush put us in over his 8 year term. The increase in the deficit was to pull this country out of the recession – so please do not try to lean the facts to make it seem as if he increased the deficit simply to fund unnecessary programs/costs. Compromise is what is needed. And until the hard-headed Republicans get over their bitterness from the loss of the election, we will be at a standstill. As I no longer believe this debate is simply about preventing us all from going over a fiscal cliff.

December 11, 2012 at 12:13 pm |

Colin

Obama deployed a great many more Soldiers to Afghanistan during the surge, so your point there is incorrect.

Are you trying to say that President Obama in ANY way contributed to the execution of Osama bin Laden? I would love to know how he did this. This was action by our military, and Obama simply gave the "go" order, so let's not put credit where it's not due.

I would love for you to look up the difference in definition given to the "unemployment" figures under Bush and Obama's administration. Since Obama has been in office, the term has changed in meaning, making it less inclusive and therefore lower than it was under Bush.

Let's also remember that while some people like to say "hard headed Republicans" are solely at fault for the current state of the economy, it takes both sides to COMPROMISE in order to come to an agreement. Blame it as one-sided as you'd like, but both Democrats and Republicans are at fault.

December 18, 2012 at 9:05 am |

Steve

Please stop spouting off the CNN rhetoric. Unemployment is not going down because of new job creation – its going down because an increasing number of people are pulling themselves from the job market. I am not going to sit here and bash Obama because aside from the economy he is a descent President. But the continual blame on Bush (please remember the housing crisis is because of Clinton) and the spouting of flawed unemployment numbers simply shows the lack of independent knowledge of a topic

December 18, 2012 at 9:51 am |

charles

What other president was handed a failed and failing economy like the one that was handed to Obama, except F.D.R.?

December 12, 2012 at 10:58 pm |

Jeff

Ronald Reagan. And fixed it in 3 years.

December 17, 2012 at 10:24 pm |

Steve

By raising taxes.

December 18, 2012 at 10:34 pm |

Gene

By doubling the national debt. The same as FDR did when he fixed the lousy economy he inherited. Reagan did pretty much exactly the same thing FDR did, except his "jobs program" was a 43% increase in defense spending.

So far Obama has increased the debt by "only" about 25%, but he's only halfway through his presidency.

Truman, Eisenhower, Kennedy and LBJ paid down FDR's doubling of the debt. Reagan's successors never paid down his doubling, though Clinton did manage to bring it down some before W started moving it up again.

December 19, 2012 at 1:02 am |

Mark

Really Hannah? You gonna try to put the out of control deficit on the Republicans? You gotta start paying attention girl!

December 10, 2012 at 6:33 pm |

charles

Mark, are you disputing her facts?

December 12, 2012 at 11:01 pm |

Mark

Cutting Social Security and Medicare? Where exactly are you getting your information Hannah?

December 10, 2012 at 6:35 pm |

charles

Making those two social rights into a voucher program is cutting the program.

December 12, 2012 at 11:04 pm |

Dave in Oviedo

Here's my question: If Social Security and Medicare are in such bad shape financially, WHY THEN have all Americans been given a 2 percent tax break on these taxes the past 2 years. And furthermore, why is Congress considering extending this tax break??? Either the system is not in the financial mess that some claim, or our leaders are more stupid then I ever believed. ... And by the way, the simple fix for the problem - assuming there really is one - is to extend the tax past the $107,000 threshold. There's absolutely no reason why people making over that amount should be exempt from pay this tax. It's the most regressive tax on the books. Period.

November 30, 2012 at 3:42 pm |

Don F.

The answer to you question is at the root of our financial crisis. Despite funding seriously underfunded "entitlement" programs the supporting taxes were cut to promote economic growth - a strategy strongly advocated by the conservatives who favor cutting social programs and reducing taxes in favor of a more robust economy. The short term economic situation makes doing virtually anything to deal with the deficit a adverse impact on short term economic growth - cut taxes and one must cut programs - folks will loose jobs, increase taxes and decrease private sector spending and some folks will loose jobs. Unfortunately, as you point out this choice set only makes a bad situation worse, a reality all to common in Washington these days.